>> funding for "to the contrary" provided by: >> the hard way is not taking shortcuts. the hard way is setting the bar the hard way is the pursuit of perfection. you can learn more at lexus.com/thehardway. >> the life technologies foundation is proud to support "to the contrary" on pbs. our foundation seeks to advance science education and to further society's understanding of the life sciences including the impact of genomics on the practice of medicine. >> and by: sam's club, committed to small business and the spirit of the entrepreneur. and proud to support pbs's "to the contrary" with bonnie erbe. additional funding provided by: the colcom foundation the charles a. frueauff foundation and by the sanofi aventis

foundation. >> this week on "to the contrary:" up first, a new white house report on 50 years of economic progress for american women, but on the international front, this international women's day americans are starting to lag behind. then, financial aid for white men only? behind the headlines, this women's history month, new york democrat carolyn maloney wants congress to take another shot at an equal rights amendment. >> hello, i'm bonnie erbe. welcome to "to the contrary," a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives. up first: american women's

progress: march 8th marks the 100th celebration of international women's day. this week, the obama administration issued the first report on women's progress at home in the social and economic arenas. while we've come a long way baby, we're starting to fall behind women overseas in terms of economic and political advancement. the obama administration report shows women continue to provide the majority of family care, earn most college ba's, but, have yet to translate those educational gains into pay or income equity. women earn about 75% of what men earn. a new report from the international parliamentary union shows the u.s. 72d in the world as of this year behind such countries as rwanda, sweden and south africa, in terms of women's representation in

parliament or congress. the united states ranks 31st in the world in terms of women ministers or cabinet secretaries that report was based on figures compiled during the second bush administration. >> the u.s. is quite different from other developed nations, its counterparts in the industrialized world, in that we do not have paid parental leave policies. some of the basic, very fundamental things that working women need to succeed in the economy, in the world of work, we just don't have. and if we're really serious about winning the future as the obama administration has emphasized, we're going to need to catch up with many of the other high-income countries that have realized that to have a strong economy, you have to have supports in place to help both working men and women succeed at work. >> so, congresswoman nortons it fair to say that when you look at women's gains internationally

and women's gains here at home that american women are starting to lag behind? >> absolutely. in fact this is important study. because drive home the reality, bonnie, that american women have not used their numbers or their power since the great rapid gains of the height of the feminist movement. >> well, i disagree. i think that in fact if you look at the data one of the things that's interesting is that american women are more racially and ethnically diverse and very importantly we have many new immigrants who are coming in at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale, that skews the numbers. >> i think it is very important, not just accurate and fair to i that we're lagging behind because it shows just how far we as a nation not just as women but entire nation have to go in terms of equity, gender equity and representation. >> i disagree as well. i think this is ancient paradigm that continues to per perpetuate

that they are in need of special -- that society and workplace in particular are openly hostile to women and i don't believe that that's the case any more. >> but you don't look at, for example, the fact that we have 17% female congress and rwanda of all places is 56% female. it's got its reasons, the war, the death of a lot of men and ongoing wars there for years and years. but women are leading this country, that country economically and every other way and pulling it from a disaster in to an economic bright spot. >> women in america are leading this country, that's a very glass half full look at what's happening here. i think that the fact that women are making up fewer number of say lawmakers' position because there are other opportunities out there. we cannot, i think that we have lost our way with feminism. feminism is about offering equal opportunities for everybody. it does not mean that we have to

have equal outcomes. we do not have to have equal parity for men and women in all areas of life in order for women to be equal. >> of course. but isn't it something that women as the feminist movement began were told quite rightly you got to make sure that you get more education, you come out of the housewife era. women have done, more education by far than this. more grad bat degrees than than this. stay in school longer than men. the fail tour translate that -- fail tour translate that more quickly in to that are own economic gains is something that everybody should be angry about and should look behind to see what we can do. >> it is a matter of choice. the fact is if you look at the education levels, you're absolutely right in terms of numbers, women have more bas then have to look at what women are studying. and what the remuneration is for those degrees and if men are

more highly concentrated in the technical, scientific, mathematical engineering that kind of thing, women are in education or in other things that do not pay as well you're going to have differences in terms of the outcome. >> but i think what we also know is that when you account for accu picks, account for industry, account for educational background there is still committed have shown there was report in 2007 there is still 41% unexplainable gap, wage gap there. is still something there, i believe that is attributed to discrimination. when you account for everything else the same there is still a question of why women aren't -- >> erica, the civil rights commission back in the 1980s we did a big thing on comparable worth. eleanor holmes norton was head of the eooc around the same time. a little bit before. we looked at wages, hours worked, number of years of experience, in fact we -- and age, because you have a lot of women who are entering the workforce been out of the workforce for awhile once you

control for all of those things including marital status, we were able to wipe out all but about 8%. >> what is shameful to say women are working to be sure in occupations like nursing and teaching and social work and guess what, the fact that these occupations pay so much less than comparable occupations with comparable responsibility has everything to do with the fact that they are gender stereotype. it does account, it does, you're right. it does account for large part of that gap. but we've got to face why that gap is here. those occupations always were gender stereotyped they continued to be gender stereotyped we don't want to say to women don't be teachers and nurses we ought to be making sure that they make pay comparable to the comparable male occupation. >> to respond to the congresswoman if we want higher

pay and education we should have ha marketplace, competition in education not have government-run schools. one of the other problems this whole conversation is that, we've seen, feminists seem to be upset the the choices that women have made. the fact that weep have all these opportunities but they may choose to take six, ten, 12 years out of the workplace to raise a family, i think is disappointing to a lot of women. that is where we have to recognize that feminism is about equality under the law not about engineering -- >> what are you talking about. women go back to work as soon as the children are work. what you must be talking about upper crust of the very educated women. most women are back in the workforce when their children are hardly able to walk. >> /data to show that when women, you account for occupation, when you account for education, when you account for time away from the workforce, study done in 2006 that showed that when a woman had the exact same credentials and qualifications, one took a year off from parenthood, one took year off for travel in the

hypothetical situation. both were viewed differently. the mother was still viewed as less competent, less qualified and capable for promotion. how do you explain that then? >> i know, on the other side the american association for university women, who is hardly an arm of the conservative movement said the wage job all but disappeared. i think that's true among younger wrem. >> it's true among phds, female phds make 98% of what male phds make. wean they're 40 and 50 not right out of graduate school. that is when the huge gaps start. when women's advancement to aid for white men. are white men underserved by college financial aid programs? yes, says the nonprofit called the former majority association for equality, or fmae. this group has created a college scholarship exclusively for

white men and a stir along with it. applicants must be male, 25% caucasian, have a 3.0 g.p.a., demonstrate financial need, and be active members of their communities. fmae's president, colby bohannan, says the goal is financial assistance for a demographic can't apply for most aid programs due to racial and gender requirements. fmae eschews racist and white supremacy members or donors. so far, the organization has raised about $3000 from donations which is enough to grant five $500 scholarships for the fall 2011 term. >> so, this is small and it's a drop in the bucket in terms of really helping a large number of people. good idea, bad idea? >> i think all quotas especially gender are bad. i think that they diminish merit and scholarship and replace with something artificial.

your gender or your race. >> have you applied for a scholarship -- not talking about financial aid here. talking about scholarships. >> in graduate school, yes. >> were they not -- i did it, i got some but they were all for like the children of polish immigrants of new york city or -- i mean my feeling is, of course white men are less under served than other groups. but still they have all these dumb requirements for scholarships. >> i agree with you. but i think ultimately what the foundation of this is this kind of movement is that it's a bad time in america for boys. we just talked about sort of the obsession that we have with the status of women and girls. i think a lot of men and boys are being left behind. >> i don't care. i think most people will laugh, but the things that i find most interesting is, you can get it if you can show that you're 25% white. >> that makes it really

interesting. president obama would qualify for that. >> look, i am opposed to all race-based depend are-based, ethnic-based programs of this sort on either side. >> does that make you opposed to most scholarships anyway because most -- there are a lot of ethnic -- >> first you will all depends whether it's government or private money. >> it's private money i still think philosophically i'm opposed to it. it doesn't have in my view the same weight as government-based program. but the fact is, we used to have these programs. the rhodes scholarship was named for cecil rhodes the founder of then rhodesia, used to be for white males, period. begot rid of that. i think what this is all about is this is sort of turning white males in to an aggrieved minority. >> only 25% white. >> linda is right, that is what

the point is that they're calling white males, for me that premises where the problem comes in. i don't think that that is true. i don't think that white men are under served, i used to have a friend argue with what if we had whiten terrainment sell vision. majority of television is whiten terry takenment sell vision. for me that argument plays out here. where if you look at -- there are still a number of income-based and merit based scholarships that are not race based. for them to say a lack of scholarship available for young white men i think is false. >> scholarships going to white men, come on. >> the question is, what can we do other than -- outside of these artificial scholarship programs to encourage more diverse campus. i think something to remember is that universities can't have all athletes or all musicians they benefit from having diversity. benefit from having men and women for people of different regions with different talents and aptitudes. if we try to focus on that allow

that to generate who goes to the schools i think we'd be better off. >> frankly -- >> but again i think we're going a little that are afield in the sense that admissions and scholarships are two different things. even the one thing that is really awful about scholarships to me today is you work really hard to get them. and then there's 500 and $100 what is that going to do. >> a drop in the bucket. >> it is a drop in the bucket. again, i think i agree with eleanor that if it's private money, do what you want with your own money. but i think the bigger issue is, i think you're right, sabrina that there is some concern about what's happening and people lagging behind. one of my objections to race-based scholarships instead of financial-based scholarship is that they do sometimes not reach people who may be very

disadvantaged. i live not very far from west virginia you move right across from virginia in to west virginia looking at a lot of very poor people, people without a lot of education, people whose families lost their jobs in industries that have disappeared. i would like to see kids who show some academic promise behind the headlines: equal rights amendment. the era has been introduced in congress every session since 1923, after suffragist alice paul wrote it in 1921. it passed congress in 1972, but 35 states did not support it. in honor of women's history month, i spoke with democratic congresswoman carolyn maloney about what she and other women's rights advocates are doing to guarantee women equal protection under the u.s. constitution. >> we are re-introducing the women's equality amendment and

we are working to pass it. most people agree that women and men should have equality of opportunities. and many liked-minded men have been more vocal in support than even women. and so it is a goal that america believes in. this is the 21st century, let's make it happen. >> earlier this year there was a feminist firestorm over comments made by supreme court justice antonin scalia. in an interview, justice scalia said the 14th amendment, which grants equal protection to citizens under the law, does not protect women from gender discrimination. >> his comments were a wake-up call. he said that women are not mentioned in the constitution and that any discriminatory laws that passed against women, he said he would uphold. that is quite a wake-up call. he is a leader on the supreme court. if he could get four others to follow him, he could erase 40 years of progressive legislation

that moved women toward more equality of opportunity which was important. but he basically said women are not in the constitution. so we are re-in producing the women's equality movement. >> representative maloney, along with democratic senator robert menendez, and leaders from national women's rights conference on capitol hill denouncing justice scalia's comments and called for a constitutional amendment explicitly acknowledging women's rights. >> there was an outpouring of support from the major women's organizations. from the ms. foundation to now to the women's political caucus to the women's financial caucus to all the types of women's leaderships came together. they were calling me, "carolyn, we need to do something." our founding mothers had two major goals: to have the right to vote, which we achieved and from which have come other

powers; and to have that bedrock security of being in the great constitution of our country. >> maloney says the era will not only benefit women, but society as a whole. >> 99% of the american public says, of course, women and men should have equal opportunities. and men who have wives and daughters feel very strongly about it. we are in a global economy. we cannot afford not to use half of our population and educate them and give them the opportunity to make full contributions with their lives. this is a goal worth fighting for. and what is more important than equality? >> congresswoman norton, it's been three decades plus the bit fight over the era will justice scalia's remarks reinvigorate this debate? >> not as much as it should. shame on him for a number of

reasons. first, shouldn't say how he would rule on any case. second does he forget that one of his colleagues, justice ginsberg in the 1970s got the supreme court to say that the 14th amendment in fact applies to women, here is a justice announcing that he will not follow supreme court precedent. that is scary. it means that he is making it up as he goes along. if the precedent of a supreme court, which is supposed to bind us all including those of the supreme court do not protect the rights of women, no wonder carolyn and number of us want to make sure that there is no gap in at least introducing the era to keep the the notion that women are not fully equal and not even regarded that way someone on the court who could take away their existing rights. >> you know what is so surprising about what justice

scalia said is that men aren't mentioned ayer. persons and individuals. >> all men are created equal. i know, not that -- >> if you read the constitution the word "person" the word "individual" appears it does not in fact 14th amendment does not say "man" it says -- so i have always interpreted it in fact that would have been one of the reasons why back in the '70s and '80s i would have said i don't think we need the era because we're all covered. >> is it ever coming back as a big movement? >> i have to tell you, i would be concerned if i did not think that there were equal protection and that there were -- should not be discrimination on the basis of sex. it would make me an enthusiastic supporter of the era. justice scalia with whom i often agree has just turned me around on this issue. and, eleanor, you want to get introduced i'll be out there -- >> quick question to you, though. i was on the phone this week with someone whose working with tammy baldwin's office a congresswoman from wisconsin

who, she is going to introduce an amendment to extend the time that the 35 states, i believe. in other words, only three or four more states are needed, florida, north carolina and louisiana are among them. and so there was a bill in congress, you know now that any time congress votes on a pay raise for itself it doesn't apply to that session. you have to wait until the next session. that bill took 111 years to become law. so the proponents much the era are trying to get congress to extend the time that its supporters will have to just get three more states as opposed to having to go back and start with 38 states again. >> the difference between a bill and constitutional amendment. if you want a constitutional amendment to go often an amendment you can get them extension as we did here. you got to get congress to say so. because the precedent that have is almost nonexistent.

>> i think, just slight different in direction. one problem with the era that it eliminates the chance for what i think is sometimes healthy segregation in society. so groups like the boy scouts or the girl scouts which have come under attack from sort of radical groups on the left, gender apartheid. then ymca, ywca, fraternities, sororities, same-sex schools and summer camp, all be threatened by an era with the word rights changes the whole equation. that's something to keep in mind. sometimes that are unintended conconcerns of what sounds like it would be a step in the right direction. >> what i disagree that i am a little bit torn on the area of the era, ideologically i'm 100% behind it and believe it is critical and admirable goal. i think generationally, this is something that's very interesting, i don't know that many young women of my generation, i'll say what linda -- most women feel they are already protected. so perception is challenge maybe

the perception is a danger. but i don't know that there's going to be a large ground swell and movement in support of the amendment. however important it may be because the perception isn't there that it'secessary. >> you know, i don't think that even on his side of the aisle the supreme court that justice scalia's views would prevail. i don't think -- >> the civil rights act of 1964. we have numerous federal statutes protecting women in the workplace and private settings. >> in the four examples, the armed forces where women are truly exploited they're on the ground beside the men who are shooting, but they can't shoot. they are, quote, support troops. there are many, do you write about unintended consequences. the amendment went through you have to be very careful. but on the other hand for every instance like that i can cite you instance where there is end it.scrimination.

that's it for this edition of "to the contrary." next week: a special show on the impact the country's growing population is having on natural resources. please join us on the web for "to the contrary extra." whether your views are in agreement or "to the contrary," please join us next time. >> funding for "to the contrary" provided by: >> the new 2011 lexus i.s., it >> the hard way is not taking shortcuts. the hard way is setting the bar too high. the hard way is the pursuit of perfection. you can learn more at

lexus.com/thehardway. >> the life technologies foundation is proud to support "to the contrary" on pbs. our foundation seeks to advance science education and to further society's understanding of the life sciences including the impact of genomics on the practice of medicine. >> and by: sam's club, committed to small business and the spirit of the entrepreneur. and proud to support pbs's "to the contrary" with bonnie erbe. additional funding provided by: the colcom foundation the charles a. frueauff foundation and by the sanofi aventis foundation. for videotapes of "to the contrary", please contact federal news service at 1-888-343-1940.